Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold Mark 4 4.5x 14 vs Zeiss Conquest

I hope I don't start a war but I wanted to give an objective report....

I have had a Zeiss conquest 4.5-14x44 for several years and it has served me well. I recently purchased a Leupold mark 4 LRT 4.5-14x50 and received it two weeks ago. Last night I had both scopes out and looked down the street as the sun was setting. I couldn't believe the how much clearer the Zeiss was. The image was better, more light was being transmitted to the eye and it seemed like max magnification setting on the Zeiss was at least one or two more magnification settings higher than the Leupold when set at max. I'm not saying the Zeiss is better yet because I need to spend more time with the Leupold. I may learn to love it but I have to admit to being a little disappointed.

Has anybody else had similar findings??

if you want to sell the leupy let me know...........blake

The Conquest is the hands down winner when compared to a Leupold. Much better optics, brighter so on and so on. Leupold has priced themselves out of the market. They are good scopes, but they can'y hold a candle to a Zeiss.

What country are the Zeiess Conquest scopes made in ?

The Conquest are assembled in the USA with components manufactured overseas.

That's an interesting result considering the Leupold has a 29% larger objective lens, I would think the Mk4 would be the better light gather.

seems that lens coatings, and quality of the glass itself, tend to do more for "light gathering" than just adding real estate to the front of an optic ...

Painless, if you're interested in the Leupold let me know. We'll work something out.

you have a pm.........blake

Yeah but in reverse order. I was never all that thrilled with the optical quality of my VX-III 4.5-14X50 LR but it was "good enough" for me to "see the target" and "get the job done". I've now gone and spoiled myself--I picked up an IOR 4-14X50 Tactical. Looking through the two side by side is a "Holy Crap!!!" experience....

So Blake, wanna buy my VX-III? It'll go much cheaper than a Mark 4.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

i like the 30mm tube and turrets on the mark 4, plus I have one just like it on my 300 dakota...........blake

Looking into the sun remains one of the failings of the Leupold riflescopes. There is something wrong with the Leupold design or manufacture. The Leupold reticules turn brown also in bright light but the worst part is their lack of decent definition. In those conditions a Simmons Aetec is similar to the Leupolds that I have.

I am really torn on what scope is best for my big game rifles. On one hand all I want is a small light variable scope and on many shots ordinary or sub ordinary optics gets the game. Then there is the Conquest line of superior optics that also are way too long and quite heavy as well at least on most big game rifles.

I called Zeiss USA a while back and got a knowlegeble shooter hunter there who understood my comments and he let me know that the market, as Zeiss saw it, was for large objectives and at that point the new Conquests with such large objectives were back ordered. Look at what we got from Leupold now with the Ellipse scope or whatever they call it.

Of all the scopes I own including NF, and Swarvarski, my 4.5X14 Leup tact is the clearest scope I own. Might be just this one. Aside from the clearness, durability and reliability are at the top of my list, and in that area Leupold is at the top.

Lefty

Lefty ...

I've been pondering one of the MK4 LR/T 4.5-14x50 M1 scopes for some time now ... Everything about that optic is very appealing to me, except that it looks like a big 'ol squatty fat pig ... When I look at the proportions of the MK4 3.5-10x40 and MK4 6.5-20x50, they look very sleek and sexy ... but the MK4 4.5-14x50 looks like someone stood it up on it's objective and squashed it down to make it shorter... it's a fugly scope at best, the way the taper from the 50mm objective is so quick down to the 30mm tube ...

I've only seen this scope in pictures ... so can you tell me if it looks any better in person?

WGM it may be fugly but DAMN it is a nice scope............blake

Painless ... that's what I hear ... I'm (for no good reason at all) trying to convince myself that the scope is not ugly ... as if I need to spend anymore money on my addictions ... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

And exactly how do you come to this conclusion?

Terry

You aren't starting a war....you are only calling it the way it is. The Zeiss scopes are superior plain and simple. There are hard headed people who have been driving a chevy pickup for so long, they can't even consider a better product so they've never even test drive a Ford or Ram.....it's the same thing. My dad hunted with Leupolds and they work......wow, big deal....so did the Weaver K4's!!! The Zeiss line of scopes are better and I might add, cheaper. Thanks for the post and regards, Rick.

That last reply is dead on. I had the same discussion on a forum about Vexilar VS Marcum fish finders. Marcum is hands down superior to Vexilar and some people just can't admit it just like TV's. They see a Sony and still choose the other; usually because they can't admit they can't afford the better product. It's that whole American thing about a man's worth being his pocket book. In life you get what you pay for and if you can only afford a certain thing then you're no less a man and it's no better a product. Having said that I wish I could afford a US Optics scope but I just might splurge for the Nightforce instead or might save the money for other things and go with the Zeiss.

To anyone interested. Until you have used several of the different brands a lot, it is really hard to tell the effective difference. I have found the more I spend on a scope the more effective I am at killing game in all different conditions and situations.It takes a while to realize this, but I have found I just consistently take game at any distance.
Most generally these post just turn into people defending what they already have,really not of too much value if no comparisons can be made to other experiences.Isn' there a saying the quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten.
Guys need to quit cheaping out on the optics and to just as great extent the mounts and rings and the quality of the installation. A lot of scope problems are due to incorrect mounting and ineffective rings and bases. . What the heck is a few hundred bucks more over a period of years.You get what you pay for! And please don't tell me thats all I can afford.I will not feel quilty. Give up the cigarettes,beer, cigars,pop,other women or whatever .